Demolition Means Progress

Abstract

Motors shuttered a massive complex of factories in the gritty industrial city of Flint, Michigan, signs were placed around the empty facility reading, "Demolition Means Progress," suggesting that the struggling metropolis could not move forward to greatness until the old plants met the wrecking ball. Much more than a trite corporate slogan, the phrase encapsulates the operating ethos of the nation's metropolitan leadership from at least the 1930s to the present. Throughout, the leaders of Flint and other municipalities repeatedly tried to revitalize their communities by demolishing outdated and inefficient structures and institutions and overseeing numerous urban renewal campaigns-many of which yielded only more impoverished and more divided metropolises. After decades of these efforts, the dawn of the twentyfirst century found Flint one of the most racially segregated and economically polarized metropolitan areas in the nation.

Rethinking Tiebout: The Contribution of Political Fragmentation and Racial/Economic Segregation to the Flint Water Crisis

“…This displacement also sped up white flight to the suburbs as the black population spilled over into previously segregated white enclaves within the city. 42 Blockbusting by real estate agents and fears of racial conflict fueled the departure of thousands of white families from the city in the 1960s and 1970s. 43 In this era of massive displacement, suburbanites sought to reestablish the color line by isolating themselves in politically separate municipalities.…”

“…After 1968, however, suburbanites increasingly embraced exclusionary zoning and building codes, home rule, and other ostensibly colorblind practices that in reality perpetuated exclusion along lines of both race and class. 44 Once in separate municipalities, suburbanites felt functionally absolved from the legacy infrastructure and social problems they had helped to create, 45 opting instead to develop duplicated infrastructures (as noted above). Howell-Moroney notes that such ''boundaries serve to artificially circumscribe notions of collective responsibility.''…”